41 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Alright - save one or save a million - which one is morally right?

Both may or may not be right. If that one is Palpatine or the million are Traviss Mandalorians, then letting them all die is probably the will of the Force.

Tramp morality - good people do good things; because they're good people the things they do are good things.

FaD morality - my character meets Korath and wants to push him out an airlock. 1 conflict for strong emotion. Instead, she tells him to go boil his head. 2 conflict for rude behavior. 3 conflict total, my D10 roll is a four, I gain a morality point for my restraint! Yay!

Edit: aaaaaand I lost a bet with a coworker about whether I was gonna post in this topic again.

3 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

Tramp morality - good people do good things; because they're good people the things they do are good things.

FaD morality - my character meets Korath and wants to push him out an airlock. 1 conflict for strong emotion. Instead, she tells him to go boil his head. 2 conflict for rude behavior. 3 conflict total, my D10 roll is a four, I gain a morality point for my restraint! Yay!

Edit: aaaaaand I lost a bet with a coworker about whether I was gonna post in this topic again.

Nah, you wouldn't get any Conflict for just "wanting" to do that. Now, actually following through , on the other hand... The same with simply telling someone to "boil his head". There's a huge difference between blowing off steam with a "rude" comment, and being verbally abusive . especially if said character actually deserves it.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Nah, you wouldn't get any Conflict for just "wanting" to do that.

Wrong.

Why do you think you get Conflict for failing a fear check? Its because you're feeling strong emotions, and that awards Conflict. The same is true for other emotions: rage, anger, hate, passion. So, unless you're playing an emotionless psychopath, you're gonna take Conflict.

10 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Wrong.

Why do you think you get Conflict for failing a fear check? Its because you're feeling strong emotions, and that awards Conflict. The same is true for other emotions: rage, anger, hate, passion. So, unless you're playing an emotionless psychopath, you're gonna take Conflict.

Nope. Feeling an emotion is not what causes Conflict. Giving into that emotion and letting it determine your actions is. Failing a Fear check means you are frozen with fear , or otherwise acting irrationally because of fear, not simply feeling fear. It is letting that fear consume you instead of acknowledging it, and letting it go, which would be passing a fear check. to quote page 327:

Quote

Interpreting the dice results is key to determining the effects of fear. The check represents the character's ability to act in the face of fear, not necessarily the level of fear the character may feel.

In fact, the only time a character earns Conflict for failing a fear check is of he also rolled a Despair when doing so.

You're being frozen with fear and letting someone die gives you Conflict...but being frozen with fear of using the Dark Side ONCE to save that same person doesn't? Wha?

Actually, a GM may choose to award Conflict on a failed Fear check without Despairs if they wish. It just happens automatically no matter what if you generate a Despair.

2 hours ago, StarkJunior said:

Alright - save one or save a million - which one is morally right?

Spend a Destiny Point, and no one dies...?

5 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

It is, because he made the choice not to suffer a little darkness (that he could then meditate on and overcome spiritually) to save an innocent life. It's the trolly car scenario. Having the trolly car run over the one person isn't the right decision, and neither is having it run over the five people. There IS no right decision, that's the whole meaning of the word dilemma:

The idea that you'll never come across a dilemma in your time of play is ludicrous.

As a fun side note, as a GM I would relish those times when you fail fear checks and take Conflict, just so I could watch you try to argue why you shouldn't suffer any.

And conflict is what you get when you have a trolly car decision to make as a character. Your character has to deal with that choice afterwards. And this could move the character closer to the darkside or not. Which is what the roll is about. Conflict is not the same as darkside. And using the darkside pips are not exactly using the dark side of the force.

4 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope. Feeling an emotion is not what causes Conflict. Giving into that emotion and letting it determine your actions is. Failing a Fear check means you are frozen with fear , or otherwise acting irrationally because of fear, not simply feeling fear. It is letting that fear consume you instead of acknowledging it, and letting it go, which would be passing a fear check. to quote page 327:

In fact, the only time a character earns Conflict for failing a fear check is of he also rolled a Despair when doing so.

Again you are showing that you do not grasp this system. Conflict is the inner turmoil your character experiences.This is what the DEVs say. And I am pretty sure they know the system better than you. You are using the D20 mindset. Which is pretty much why you are getting so much in this system wrong. This is not D20. stop using that thinking.

"This thread leads to anger..."

Everyone reading this thread gets two pints of conflict. ?

(I left the typo in because a couple pints sounds good right now)

Anyway, as you were.

6 hours ago, Ulric dOrien said:

"This thread leads to anger..."

Everyone reading this thread gets two pints of conflict. ?

(I left the typo in because a couple pints sounds good right now)

Anyway, as you were.

I'll drink to that!

12 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

Spend a Destiny Point, and no one dies...?

Perfect! GM, youre ok with that right I don't want to have to make a decision, those are impossible. I'll take the light side choice please, with no conflict, and take this DP to accomplish the task that I saw as bad as well.

Then the GM flips a point and has that ledge collapse.

In all seriousness, flipping a DP should alter a detail of a scene, not directly alter the outcome of a scene. I would allow a DP to place a ledge before an action causes someone to fall, but not after a result shows an outcome of somebody falling. To do otherwise overly empowers narrative over game.

23 minutes ago, killerbeardhawk said:

Perfect! GM, youre ok with that right I don't want to have to make a decision, those are impossible. I'll take the light side choice please, with no conflict, and take this DP to accomplish the task that I saw as bad as well.

Yeah...it's kinda like when I tell my two-year-old, "you can have an apple or an orange," and she says, "umm, chocolate!"

At this point, I can't reason with her and say, "I know you want chocolate, but you need to eat some fruit right now, because I want you to stay healthy." Because then all she does is escalate with the chocolate demands.

And I feel like saying, "you want a real dilemma, I'll give you a real dilemma! Timeout or spanking?" But see, I can't do that, because it would be counterproductive to my original end goal, which is getting her to eat the d#&% fruit.

1 hour ago, awayputurwpn said:

Yeah...it's kinda like when I tell my two-year-old, "you can have an apple or an orange," and she says, "umm, chocolate!"

At this point, I can't reason with her and say, "I know you want chocolate, but you need to eat some fruit right now, because I want you to stay healthy." Because then all she does is escalate with the chocolate demands.

And I feel like saying, "you want a real dilemma, I'll give you a real dilemma! Timeout or spanking?" But see, I can't do that, because it would be counterproductive to my original end goal, which is getting her to eat the d#&% fruit.

Because this thread is already derailed as it is, I must ask...

How effective is bribery? EG: Eat this fruit first, then you can have some chocolate.

1 hour ago, GroggyGolem said:

Because this thread is already derailed as it is, I must ask...

How effective is bribery? EG: Eat this fruit first, then you can have some chocolate.

Haha. With fruit, it's easy. She understands "first; then" really well. Just have to be careful I don't let her dictate the terms too often With other foods (most meats/vegetables), it usually only works for 2-3 bites. She'll take a mouthful and then say "all done!" through the food that's still in her mouth, and refuse any further bites by not swallowing.

What works best in those situations is having Peppa Pig or Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood playing on a screen in front of her, then pausing it until she takes another bite. Rinse, repeat. Figure I can reason with her better once she's a bit older.

I fight the battles that I think matter the most

Except on these forums, that is...eesh! I need to get my priorities in order.

Let's face it, I don't think any of us would still be here if we weren't entertained on some level by it.

3 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

In all seriousness, flipping a DP should alter a detail of a scene, not directly alter the outcome of a scene. I would allow a DP to place a ledge before an action causes someone to fall, but not after a result shows an outcome of somebody falling. To do otherwise overly empowers narrative over game.

I disagree, based upon what it says regarding the use of Destiny Points on page 36 of the F&D core book regarding Deus ex machina uses. Pretty much every example they use is an " after the fact " use.

18 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I disagree, based upon what it says regarding the use of Destiny Points on page 36 of the F&D core book regarding Deus ex machina uses. Pretty much every example they use is an " after the fact " use.

As a fellow player, I would get annoyed at you constantly burning DP without a penalty just because you don't want to use a few DSP and earn some interesting, rewarding Conflict - while everyone else is, you know, playing the game and being interesting with their characters.

11 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I disagree, based upon what it says regarding the use of Destiny Points on page 36 of the F&D core book regarding Deus ex machina uses. Pretty much every example they use is an " after the fact " use.

The examples they give aren't cases of the environment changing, they're examples of a non-specified addition. The terrain for cover doesn't magically appear if a room was described as barren. You can flip a DP to have rebreathers in a toxic environment, you can't flip a DP to have the environment not be toxic anymore. If you flip a DP to have a ledge or vine appear, there's still gonna be a athletics check from whoever is falling and you character will still have done nothing in his turn.

There's also a section that says the GM has final say and that outrageous or unlikely requests don't have to, and shouldn't, be accepted. It's not a magic undo button, and it's a finite resource. If I were the one falling, and you spent a DP to maybe give me an extra roll instead of spending a DP to have a guaranteed success... I'd be a little annoyed.

4 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

As a fellow player, I would get annoyed at you constantly burning DP without a penalty just because you don't want to use a few DSP and earn some interesting, rewarding Conflict - while everyone else is, you know, playing the game and being interesting with their characters.

Except that earning Conflict isn't "Rewarding". Just the opposite. You get Conflict for doing wrong , not doing good. Now, I would agree if a player did it constantly, but not in an unexpected emergency, which this hypothetical case would be. And especially since such an "emergency" would actually be more disruptive to the narrative than either of the "Dark Side" outcomes you're trying to railroad the character into. But, as I said before, with the higher FP rating he has to begin with, such a scenario would be few and far between anyway.

3 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

The examples they give aren't cases of the environment changing, they're examples of a non-specified addition. The terrain for cover doesn't magically appear if a room was described as barren. You can flip a DP to have rebreathers in a toxic environment, you can't flip a DP to have the environment not be toxic anymore. If you flip a DP to have a ledge or vine appear, there's still gonna be a athletics check from whoever is falling and you character will still have done nothing in his turn.

There's also a section that says the GM has final say and that outrageous or unlikely requests don't have to, and shouldn't, be accepted. It's not a magic undo button, and it's a finite resource. If I were the one falling, and you spent a DP to maybe give me an extra roll instead of spending a DP to have a guaranteed success... I'd be a little annoyed.

It's not changing the environment. Nor is it outrageous. It's a logical addition to the narrative based upon the environment ; as in "luckily that ledge was just a few meters below", not "a ledge just suddenly appears a few meters below".

Whether a character earns Conflict needs to be a matter of choice . A player and his character must be able to choose to earn Conflict not be force into taking Conflict no matter what choice he makes. Yes, those choices should be hard choices, but they should still be there. The option to be able to make a choice that does not earn Conflict must be a possibility, even if it is a remote or very difficult one to make. To focre a situation where Conflict is inevitable no matter what is poor GMing.

20 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Like myself, he is as stubborn.

Stubborn: having or showing dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something, especially in spite of good arguments or reasons to do so.

So he admits that he's not going to change his views, even if they are wrong.

/Thread

Tramp, I am not talking about rewarding that way. I mean, it is more rewarding for the overall narrative if every character is struggling with the balance between light and dark, which is represented by earning Conflict. It's one of the central tenets of Force and Destiny's themes. I wouldn't want to play with a character who just... doesn't really get Conflict all that much. It's like they're a glorified NPC who doesn't do anything.

And, no, forcing a situation where Conflict is inevitable is not poor GMing - if it's every single time, sure - but the whole point of Morality is those dilemmas.